(06-26-2021, 02:24 PM)Dimson Wrote:

(06-26-2021, 09:45 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: You and Dimson have the philosophy of "if there is no victim, there is no crime."  Which sounds good, but what you are really saying is, you don't want to do anything to protect the public.  Therefore to you, drunk driving is okay, as long as no one gets injured.   You'd punish the drunk driver if he hits anybody.  But that completely leaves out the aspect of public safety.  A lot of laws that proscribe certain behaviors are there to protect the public, because even though it's possible that nothing bad will happen as a result of that behavior, there is enough of a risk that society can reasonably ask to be protected from that behavior.   

Libertarianism is fine as long as you are willing to draw a line somewhere reasonable.  But the kind of all-out, unlimited libertarianism that you two are espousing is completely impractical and unacceptable to almost everyone.  The question is, should you have unlimited freedom to risk my life as long as I am not harmed?  I would say, the possibility of harm has to be measured and judged and then we have the right to decide whether it's reasonable to put a restriction on your behavior.

If nothing happens to the public, why do you want it to be a crime? If nothing effects someone else, why should it be a crime? If you want to gather rain water to water your plants, by law you can't. Why should that be a law? If you want to set up a lemonade stand to make a little extra money, you should be able to without getting a permit. If you want to cut hair for a living you should be able to without getting a license. If what you are doing does not impede on someone else's life, liberty or property, it should not be a law.